Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

/r/Libertarian is for both philosophical and political libertarians of all kinds including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below, and is not associated with the Libertarian Party. This is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (as encouraged by reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don't downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it's pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don't message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don't like the content? DON'T REPORT IT OR MESSAGE US ABOUT IT ... since we aren't going to tag it, remove it or ban anyone. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.

Ron is a strict consitutionalist. The Constitution states that the Federal gov't has limited powers and that everything else if left to the states or the people. This was so the states could act as laboratories for democracy and they could try different things.

Ron is pro-life and very religious but he won't try to enforce that at the federal level because of his beliefs about the structure of government and federal power.

He shouldn't endorse it at the state level though. It would either be no abortions allowed (as it infringes on liberty of babies) or abortions are allowed (as they give the mother liberty over her body). Forcing someone to do something seemingly unnecessary in order to get an abortion seems inconsistent.

The idea is that people seeing the life inside them will change their mind. Try to take it from their perspective. They are not evil, they are just trying to be good, but approaching it from a different viewpoint.

On an issue that is as black and white as this, with no gray area in between, state rights are the only and best option, and allow the country to progress culturally to the correct choice through something similar to free market economics... one view will grow while the other shrinks, albeit slowly. We just have to wait, and although it's tough, your children will benefit from the fruits of your temporary anguish, just as the people in the 1850s suffered slavery, but now we benefit from their struggle with equality.

My point was, it should either be seen on the same page as murder and criminalized or should be allowed without government influences. Someone else correctly point out that since states can't legally criminalize it, this is the strongest power that the states have and it makes sense for them to use it (if that's what they believe).

Because he believes in the right to freedom and liberty of yet to be born babies. That's like saying, why is Ron Paul against murdering people? Isn't he a libertarian? Shouldn't people be able to kill whomever they choose?

But the position he's taking here doesn't making any sense. Granted, Maddow isn't providing much context on what Paul actually said, but what I gather is that he's in favor of a law that would still allow a woman to get an abortion, but imposes state mandated tests before hand. This doesn't work with either libertarian stance on abortion. On the one hand, the woman no longer has the right to just get an abortion, and on the other hand, the fetuses life is not longer being protected because abortions are still being practiced.

While libertarianism doesn't draw any real conclusions on abortion, this position just seems like more unnecessary government. Now Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a Constitutionalist. Rednailz already discussed this

Ron is a strict consitutionalist. The Constitution states that the Federal gov't has limited powers and that everything else if left to the states or the people. This was so the states could act as laboratories for democracy and they could try different things.
Ron is pro-life and very religious but he won't try to enforce that at the federal level because of his beliefs about the structure of government and federal power.

The abortion issue is a tricky one, and to be honest I'm not sure how to approach it. However, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I'm not saying it's not important, but we need to get our priorities in order. When we're done butchering men, women, and children around the world like cattle in the name of corporate interests and profits, THEN we can start talking about abortion.

Additionally, just because the decision would be left to the states does not naturally mean that every single state would make the same decision. Some would allow abortions, some wouldn't. If you want one, get off your ass and travel to a state that allows it. If you're not willing to do so, don't bitch. I'm sure I sound callow, but until the endless wars come to an end people arguing about abortion (for one side or the other) can go play in traffic.

would like to see that quote in more context. I think there is a chance that the 'it' would have more to do with that the State of Texas should have always been in control (as opposed to the Federal Gov't) over what is and is not illegal within its own borders

He and anyone else can support whatever they want, there is no question there. This issue isn't a strickly "pro life" problem, it is the use of state government to intervene into the affairs of the doctor-patient relationship and business. I think that is where the line is crossed and Ron Paul, as fervent a support that I am, take a strike for it.

I think it's more a matter that Ron Paul can't really run as a true libertarian. He's already at odds with his party on so much...if he were to come out as an AnarchoCapitalist/Voluntaryist who actually believes self-government is ideal, then he'd lose what credibility he has, and he'd be even further marginalized. He uses the constitution as a tool as it still happens to have a bit of weight with the American public, and is a step in the right direction toward actual liberty.

He's not enforcing or advocating the medical procedure as much as letting Texans decide for themselves what state laws they want in place. This might be a little weird to a Brit, but part of what makes America special is the idea that each state is supposed to have rights and the federal government can only do what is explicitly stated in the Constitution (in theory).

An analogy would be that I support the right that you can have whatever style wallpaper in your house that you own, decided on by your family. If you purchase wallpaper that I and some of your neighbors might find really ugly we have no right to say you can't use it in your own house.

Sorry if this is condescending at all, not sure your age/history knowledge :)

Yes what most people (including most Americans) don't realize is that the US is not a single nation legally. The US is meant to be something like the EU. The US Constitution is a legally nothing more than a treaty between sovereign nations. However as you can see it didn't work out that way. It sort of makes more sense to think of our Civil War as the time of our founding, because that is when the Federal government triumphed over the States.

For starters, I don't see that it makes Ron Paul inconsistent, considering he's always been pro-life but opposed to federal laws regulating abortion.

However, I don't think he should have taken a position on it. He often opposes environmental regulations on the grounds that they legitimize some pollution, just not too much. This strikes me as legitimizing some abortion, as long as you look at your baby first. Seems that he should advocate a full ban and nothing less if abortion is truly murder. I can't really conceive how a libertarian would justify this.

Ron Paul is running for president of the United States, not Texas. His argument is that the federal government should not get involved in what is clearly a states rights issue. I don't see what's so confusing about that. The voters in each state will decide what is best for themselves. If Texans don't like this law, it will be easier for them to repeal it as a state law rather than a federal law.

Maddow makes it seem like Ron Paul supports the actual law when that's not necessarily the case. Although Paul is anti-abortion, that doesn't necessarily mean he supports every anti-abortion law, even when it's a state law.

The real purpose of that TV segment was to cast doubt to liberals who watch her show that Ron Paul is not their guy, in order to keep Obama in office. Young liberals who watch Maddow and voted for Obama four years ago are switching over to Paul in huge numbers. Die-hard Obama supporters need something negative to say about Paul, and all they have is either quoting Libertarian positions out of context or the abortion card, so here they double up and choose both.

This is like saying that if you don't personally kill abortion doctors, then you support abortion. Just because you don't fire every arrow in your quiver to stop something, doesn't mean you support it.

The quote was "It should always have been a Texas state position." I suppose you could read that as "Texas should have passed this long ago" or "Texans should decide this, and we should already know that." I think the latter is what he meant.

She needs to shut her whore mouth. It's not like she has ever said anything in favor of a small GOV. She just needed another reason to bash him. The fact is Ron is not perfect. BUT he is the best candidate we have had in the last few decades.

It's a religious issue. He defends human rights. He believes that an unborn baby is a human according to his religion and deserves rights, so he believes the government should protect these rights. There's really no other way around this, and it speaks to his conviction to not compromise his morales, even if he loses votes he so desperately needs. You just have to GET OVER IT.

Social issues are the trap liberals are falling into. "He doesn't support the Civil Rights Act??? We should not listen to his argument and say that's bad!" "He doesn't support the minimum wage? That means he hates poor people" "He wants to phase out social security? He hates poor people more!" If any of these things actually make sense to you then you don't really know why he says what he does, but instead assume your own conclusions. This is the trap of politics. There are many ways to argue a certain topic, and believe me, the arguments Paul makes expose the hypocritical failures of common arguments and says a clear and concise argument to avoid the inconsistencies! An example of this that most people should know by know is why he supports drug legalization, something the establishment engrained into the heads of people in the 70s and 80s under false pretenses that "drugs are bad mmkay?", when it really creates class warfare, supports drug cartels, and perpetuates poverty as well as minority incarceration; ON TOP OF being a failure and a waste of money.

We need economic stability to help loosen up the tightwad socially conservative people. If they don't have economic liberty, they won't allow social liberty. For example, when the economy recovers, people don't need to steal to survive, and we can loosen gun laws and get back our rights. Our rights are taken away because of economic problems!

The first instance in human language that involved Liberty and Freedom referred to getting out of debt. THAT is the true freedom, then you can really live your life.

But when people don't have to worry about losing their homes, have a secure job, and can afford what they want, mark my word, they won't care as much about social issues, and our culture can progress. The hurdle here is the economy. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the facts.

The average American is not a critical thinker, so we do what we can.

Abortion is a very important issue, but we simply can't win at the current time, and we must be patient. We will prevail, and that is how the constitution works, by allowing gradual public opinion to change, through state rights! Which is in fact exactly what Ron Supports, and he in fact introduced legislation to allow this to happen naturally and get the Federal Gov out of the way. The Federal government laws are what stagnates public opinion by artificially distracting social liberals away from conservatism so they can increase big government and approach Fascism faster, aka the "far left"!

Let's flip this around, shall we? Can someone explain how a libertarian can support the total lack of right of an unborn human to live? How can a libertarian not observe the unborn human's right to life and self-ownership?

Just because he wants the state to be able to do something doesn't mean he supports it. For example, he's against Lawrence v. Texas which repealed sodomy laws in all states - not because he wants gay or anal sex to be banned, but because he wants the states to be able to ban it and because he doesn't see anything in the constitution that prohibits them from doing it.

He gets a lot of criticism for this position, and some call him anti-gay because of it, which is stupid since he has exactly the same position on marijuana - federal government should not interfere with states' laws. If there was a federal ban on gay sex, he probably would've been against it just as he's against the war on drugs, and would've been known as the pro-LGBT guy just like he's known as the pro-legalization politician now.

I don't know if he supports this anti-abortion law (probably not, he'd rather just see a ban on abortion), but he supports the states' rights to do stupid things rather than giving more power to the federal government, because it's easier to change state than federal laws, and also it's easier to move from one state.

He's a states' rights advocate and sometimes breaks away from the facets of libertarianism (both federal and state) when it's the state making the decision, which is something I believe to be both a gift and a curse. I disagree with his view on the matter, but two things: First, he's a federal-level legislator and has, to my knowledge, never advocated for federal control over abortion rights, second, Maddow going out of her way to not only ignore the aforementioned but also proceed to pull a straw man argument when her own candidates are greater offenders of infringement upon personal liberties is depressing yet completely expected.

No candidate is perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, this is not even close to a make or break decision for me as it's completely fucking unrelated to the federal position Paul is running for. Maddow clearly has very little clue about what she's talking about despite continuing to parade around as a snarky know-it-all Oxford prat.

If this story is true, which is always pretty iffy with Maddow, he probably took a state's right position on the issue. It happens to be one area I disagree with Paul; I think our right to privacy trumps states rights, because individual rights exceeds states rights. But it would be a consistent position for him, that states should be allowed to do what they want.

Liberty will either be obtained through a relatively smooth transition or an abrupt revolution. Not all forms of governance are equal. Local governance has the advantages of competition and better representation. If you're a conservative/statist/liberal/libertarian, you can live in a lonservative/statist/liberal/libertarian state.

In an an-cap society people would be allowed to form collectives. At this point you can think of it as the collective of Texas deciding to impose this rule on themselves.

A transition is a good strategy because it will give the market time to replace functions that are currently monopolized by the government. A revolution will create a vacuum that will serve those that are the most influential at the time.

The most important thing that makes Ron Paul special is that he follows consistent principles. These principles individually are not controversial. He simply carries those principles to their logical end and decides that is what must be right. We need a leader of principle rather than one of feelings.

Simply if you see a baby as life it's pretty easy to be against abortion. He thinks it should be left to the states and I would be interested to see if she took his words out of context about ultrasounds.

Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian, nor does he ever bring the subject up. He is a anti-abortion Republican. He believes that everyone should recognize that life begins at conception, and that abortion is an act of violence. He also believes that all acts of violence should be prosecuted by the states. So if one group of people are pro-choice, then they don't have to prosecute anyone who receives/preforms an abortion.